Christian Horner
Discussion
Jasandjules said:
You don't seem hugely bright. Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken?
Re-read what I wrote again, this time trying to actually understand instead of jumping to a conclusion based upon a desire to defend the indefensible.
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about or even your own view properly. If you don't think any law is being broken then there is no reason not to be able to reveal the OUTCOME ONLY of the KC investigation. Re-read what I wrote again, this time trying to actually understand instead of jumping to a conclusion based upon a desire to defend the indefensible.
I can't explain it simpler to your level, because I can't go that low, sorry.
Victor.Lee said:
You don't seem to understand what you are talking about or even your own view properly. If you don't think any law is being broken then there is no reason not to be able to reveal the OUTCOME ONLY of the KC investigation.
I can't explain it simpler to your level, because I can't go that low, sorry.
Let me try again for those hard of comprehension. I can't explain it simpler to your level, because I can't go that low, sorry.
You can not pick and choose what aspects of an investigation you answer. You either keep quiet, or address it.
What do you think one of the cross examination questions would be of Mr Horner in respect of the Whatsapp messages?
Jasandjules said:
Let me try again for those hard of comprehension.
You can not pick and choose what aspects of an investigation you answer. You either keep quiet, or address it.
What do you think one of the cross examination questions would be of Mr Horner in respect of the Whatsapp messages?
Awww so cute you think that. you are funny. You can not pick and choose what aspects of an investigation you answer. You either keep quiet, or address it.
What do you think one of the cross examination questions would be of Mr Horner in respect of the Whatsapp messages?
Jasandjules said:
Yes and I try to be even when cross examining witnesses on the stand.
But do tell us what you think one of the lines of questioning will be..
Lines of questioning by the KC to CH are not relevant to my statement. I am not talking about details of the investigation, I am talking ONLY of the OUTCOME. But do tell us what you think one of the lines of questioning will be..
Your view in binary.
1. CH address everything publicly and is open to reveal details of a confidential company and KC investigation. That would be violating multiple company policies, laws and probably NDA's.
OR
2. He says nothing at all, even when a KC decision is made, he says he can't say even what the outcome was. Imagine this scenario for a moment, the media would have a massive frenzy over why he can't even simply reveal the outcome and would ASSUME that the ONLY reason is because the KC found for the PA. So in this scenario even if both of the KC's found for CH as they did, he could not say the outcome and just let the media circus drag stating he is guilty UNTIL the ET, which could be years away? Or at what point is it acceptable to reveal the OUTCOME of the KC investigation?
Not a binary situation. State the result, which was an investigation by an outside, professional expert KC, a trusted position and authority to investigate such a matter. Then if the PA is unhappy, as she is, then go the route of the ET.
Imagine a person accused of something they are not guilty of. You are saying they either reveal everything and comment on everything like an open book (almost certain to break laws and NDA's) or say absolutely nothing and let the media vilify and cancel them even though they are not guilty and an independent investigation found no merit to the initial complaint.
Simple, revealing the OUTCOME of the KC investigation is perfectly fine. If not, then both Red Bull Austria and CH would have said nothing. They have huge teams of highly paid lawyers advising them. Much more skilled and better paid than you I assume.
Blib said:
According to a podcast that I listened to last night, there's been TWO independent KC inquiries.
do keep up ...but what was the independent KC employed by the PA's verdict?Blib said:
I do hope that it goes to court. It will be hilarious to read this thread if that happens.
regardless of outcome it wont be hilarious for Horner that's for sureJasandjules said:
Almost undoubtedly better paid than I.
But I know exactly where I would be going with my cross examination on this point.
What does cross examination have to do with both CH and Red Bull GmbH NOT BEING ABLE TO reveal ONLY the OUTCOME of both KC investigations?But I know exactly where I would be going with my cross examination on this point.
I said nothing about content of an investigation, all my comments to you have been in response to you saying either he answers all questions from the media or he makes no comment (not even allowed to state outcome of KC investigation).
You are referring to something else entirely, which i have no part of in my comments.
Edited by Victor.Lee on Saturday 24th August 16:12
Victor.Lee said:
You are referring to something else entirely, which i have no part of in my comments.
No, I am referring to the issue at hand and why it is unwise to be selective in answers in the press. Because when the inevitable Tribunal claim comes I know exactly what line of cross examination I would bring to bear in relation to those selective answers. That was the whole point, that you do not understand it is another issue. Jasandjules said:
Victor.Lee said:
You are referring to something else entirely, which i have no part of in my comments.
No, I am referring to the issue at hand and why it is unwise to be selective in answers in the press. Because when the inevitable Tribunal claim comes I know exactly what line of cross examination I would bring to bear in relation to those selective answers. That was the whole point, that you do not understand it is another issue. You stated before "Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken?" so why are you excited to cross examine CH in this scenario?
Also, multiple times you asked me what question you would ask CH in cross examination? Acting like you have a smoking gun of a question... so let's have it, give us the question you would ask him and back it up with the legal reasoning why you think it would be such a killer blow. If you can't do this, then be quiet, because clearly CH and Red Bull have no legal issues in revealing ONLY the OUTCOME of the KC investigations.
Victor.Lee said:
Jasandjules said:
Victor.Lee said:
You are referring to something else entirely, which i have no part of in my comments.
No, I am referring to the issue at hand and why it is unwise to be selective in answers in the press. Because when the inevitable Tribunal claim comes I know exactly what line of cross examination I would bring to bear in relation to those selective answers. That was the whole point, that you do not understand it is another issue. You stated before "Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken?" so why are you excited to cross examine CH in this scenario?
Also, multiple times you asked me what question you would ask CH in cross examination? Acting like you have a smoking gun of a question... so let's have it, give us the question you would ask him and back it up with the legal reasoning why you think it would be such a killer blow. If you can't do this, then be quiet, because clearly CH and Red Bull have no legal issues in revealing ONLY the OUTCOME of the KC investigations.
Please keep going.
Blib said:
According to a podcast that I listened to last night, there's been TWO independent KC inquiries.
I do hope that it goes to court. It will be hilarious to read this thread if that happens.
This is the problem, and many have eluded to it on this thread. How are the KC's independant? Who paid their invoices? If it was RB, and the chances are it was, then it can't be independant. They have skin in the game and are only interested in the outcome from the companies point of view, whether it benefits RB. CH being the CEO/ TP of RB racing is intrinsically linked to RB and anything other than the decision that was made by the two 'independent' KC's would have been acceptable. I do hope that it goes to court. It will be hilarious to read this thread if that happens.
The only real independent decision would be made by a court, which is where it may end up unless settled prior, or by KC's that were employed by a third party organisation.
jm doc said:
Victor.Lee said:
Jasandjules said:
Victor.Lee said:
You are referring to something else entirely, which i have no part of in my comments.
No, I am referring to the issue at hand and why it is unwise to be selective in answers in the press. Because when the inevitable Tribunal claim comes I know exactly what line of cross examination I would bring to bear in relation to those selective answers. That was the whole point, that you do not understand it is another issue. You stated before "Where on earth do you take from my position that I think the law has been broken?" so why are you excited to cross examine CH in this scenario?
Also, multiple times you asked me what question you would ask CH in cross examination? Acting like you have a smoking gun of a question... so let's have it, give us the question you would ask him and back it up with the legal reasoning why you think it would be such a killer blow. If you can't do this, then be quiet, because clearly CH and Red Bull have no legal issues in revealing ONLY the OUTCOME of the KC investigations.
Please keep going.
PhilAsia said:
I do find it amusing when they accuse another poster of "frothing", whilst they jump on every post and use block caps!
I also do find it amusing when some poster asks 2 times what question he would ask CH under cross examination but then decides to decline providing that question when prompted. Because he does not have it, he knows he is wrong to be so steadfast that CH and RB simply stating outcome was in some way a huge misstep that opposing lawyers would be eager to jump at.If you disagree then how about you add to the conversation and also explain to me why simply stating KC outcome without answering previous questions on content of investigation (e.g. CH refusing to comment on the WA messages), was so bad and how would opposing lawyers use this to their advantage.
Block caps used to emphasize because he was not understanding the simple idea. Deal with it.
Victor.Lee said:
Also, multiple times you asked me what question you would ask CH in cross examination? Acting like you have a smoking gun of a question... so let's have it, give us the question you would ask him and back it up with the legal reasoning why you think it would be such a killer blow..
This would obviously be subject to whatever ET3 states in respect of the messages, whether there is any future denial as of course if not then there is no need to take a point on it.......But otherwise you can simply say something like:
Turn to page XX.
This is a Whatsapp message sent to you on XX that's right isn't it?
And it was sent at XX pm, that's right isn't it?
And that is outside of normal working hours, that's right isn't it? (chances are I would have referred to her contract with hours etc if that was the case to set this point up)
It says "stop asking me to come to your room (or whatever I didn't want to focus on the photo but plainly you would in Tribunal as it will be part of sexual harassment) ", that's right isn't it?
And you did not reply that you were not asking C to come to your room, that's right isn't it?
In fact you said "well FRO and get a job elsewhere", that's right isn't it?
In other words, you were threatening C's career if she did not continue with a sexual relationship, that's right isn't it?
And this message was published on the internet on YY date, that's right isn't it?
And you did at the material time contest the veracity of that message, that's right isn't it?
You made no public statement in respect of these messages at all, that's right isn't it?
And yet this is a matter that could easily be denied if it were untrue, that's right isn't it?
And it would be open to you to take legal action to remove messages from the internet if they were untrue, that's right isn't it?
You have the resources to do so personally, that's right isn't it?
Yet on XX date you issued a press release stating you had been exonerated by a KC< that's right isn't it?
I put it to you that if these messages had been fabricated you would have stated this at the time they were published.
I put it to you that if these messages were untrue you would have taken legal action to remove their publication from the internet.
Of course the above as noted would be changed subject to what is later said, if not denied then the last parts are not relevant. But you know all this and are just being obtuse.
Victor.Lee said:
I also do find it amusing when some poster asks 2 times what question he would ask CH under cross examination but then decides to decline providing that question when prompted.
Oh I must apologise for my tardy response, you see yesterday I was preparing for a case. Today is my day off so I don't feel hugely inclined to consider XX but have noted some basic points as a guide. Plainly a lot will change subject to future events, but still. You can see them now, no doubt along the lines you would have asked yourself.Jasandjules said:
I put it to you that if these messages had been fabricated you would have stated this at the time they were published.
I put it to you that if these messages were untrue you would have taken legal action to remove their publication from the internet.
I put it to you that CH would have strong legal counsel that would have stated to him why he should say no comment at all regarding the WA messages being anonymously distributed via email publicly at that time. I put it to you that if these messages were untrue you would have taken legal action to remove their publication from the internet.
I also put it to you that if these WA messages are so damning as your many initial cross examinations questions would suggest, then you as a lawyer please, please tell me why 2 different outside "independent" KC's, after seeing these messages, would not have found any merit to the PA's grievance?
The KC would already know if these WA messages are real or not AND the KC would have the FULL messages for FULL context. Additionally much much more evidence than just these leaked WA messages. You as a lawyer, rushing to judgement based on little facts and uncorroborated facts at that.
How about you think of the cross examination of the PA when CH lawyers would be going through the full WA messages, I assume possibly messages that show her in a bad way also? Rather than thinking of just the carefully presented WA messages publicly shared to only show CH in a bad way.
You questions have no smoking gun feel to them. But thank you for actually taking the time to provide an in depth response.
Edited by Victor.Lee on Sunday 25th August 09:47
Victor.Lee said:
I put it to you that CH would have strong legal counsel that would have stated to him why he should say no comment at all regarding the WA messages being anonymously distributed via email publicly at that time.
I also put it to you that if these WA messages are do damning as your many initial cross examinations questions would suggest, then you as a lawyer please, please tell me why 2 different outside "independent" KC's, after seeing these messages, would not have found any merit to the PA's grievance?
You questions have no smoking gun feel to them. But thank you for actually taking the time to provide an in depth response.
The only reason he will be told not to comment is because he can not claim they are false if they are not..... As we all know. I also put it to you that if these WA messages are do damning as your many initial cross examinations questions would suggest, then you as a lawyer please, please tell me why 2 different outside "independent" KC's, after seeing these messages, would not have found any merit to the PA's grievance?
You questions have no smoking gun feel to them. But thank you for actually taking the time to provide an in depth response.
Why do you think the KCs were looking into these messages? Do you have proof they were in evidence?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff